My only answer, and it is not one you're going to like except that, through proper procedure (electing folks who will change such laws or running for office yourself), it can be changed is that is the law as it is written. While they, in your comment, seem to be emphasizing certain things over others, my response is, often times some crimes are targeted because they often times lead to others. Lately the craze has been in our area (SE United States) to add an additional fine to "super speeders" - those folks going over 85MPH. Quite frankly, going 84 in a 70 vs going 86 in a 70 isn't much different and I frankly believe it is a revenue generating move (just like the red light cameras) but these things are backed by studies (the validity of I can't speak for).

You hit the nail on the head when you said "they don't have the manpower or money to track and catch all of the criminals" and I think the answer to your question as to why they spend money and time on certain crimes is, quite frankly, it is visible and easy. It is easy to zing people for speeding "excessively" because it is simple and visible. Low level drug dealers / users are easy to zing. Arrest, prosecute, punish, rinse repeat. It is more difficult to do an in depth investigation that takes multiple people, lots of time, etc. and yields questionable results. Sometimes quantity is better than quality. Arrests and citations become stats and that is what the public ends up seeing - "They arrested 500 DUI's last month." No mention that only 5% were over .10% BAC, the rest between that .08 and .10 and probably not really a danger to the public but a stat and illegal nonetheless.

So the simple answer is - change the law and it won't be illegal anymore. ;)

Because it has not been legalized and taxed. Until then it is (whether you agree or not) illegal and the folks the taxpayers pay to enforce the laws are using what steps necessary to do so. This is not an endorsement of busting drug grow operations, this is merely stating, until they're told to do otherwise (by changing the law) they are going to continue to enforce the law.

It always makes me scratch my head - "Why are the cops spending money enforcing X?" Maybe because... It's illegal?

VM's running via VMWorkstation (I have a Vista VM, an XP VM running, both with multiple programs running), I have a VMWare console up from another VMWare host.... I have a surprisingly low (4) number of tabs in FF open, IE 8 (so I can run published apps via Terminal Server 2008 Web Gateway), two email clients, obligitory Word and Excel, an IM client - all that on two windows. Running another two Citrix sessions (multiple windows on each) on my Wyse thin client.... If it includes those, I guess I am over 30. :)

They hyped many of the businesses of the day. For example, take the June 2000 Wired Index. They had some of the greatest cons of this decade (Enron, WorldCom), companies that vastly lost value within two years (Lucent, AOL), companies that got bailed out recently because they were failing (Daimler/Chrysler, AIG). Broadvision was already collapsing at the time they added it (massive decline in stock price over the prior three months). Aside from AIG, I just listed 6 companies out of 40 that shouldn't have made the list in the first place IMHO. I bet there's a lot more on that list than what I listed.

Browsing Wired's old issues online, I see a number of other hyped stories. No name VCs making "power plays", sexy new markets that don't quite pan out, more no name VCs extolling the virtues of "dumbass" investors. There's the worry about what to do if things get too good in the decade that just passed.

There's a lot more pie-in-the-sky predictions which fortunately have been thwarted by circumstance and incompetence.

One sees much the same in the other direction, it's not until more than a year after March, 2000 that one sees a title story that has the dotcom decline as a key part of the story (Andy Grove, then Chairman of the Board for Intel, the story discusses Intel's problems coming from the market and demand declines). There's still plenty of "power plays" and other VC games hyped throughout the issues.

Imagine the tragedy if the fist step towards loving trousers needs to be learning to love himself.

Before they can get funding for that, they'll have to send Opportunity over to help out and get that stuck too...

According to the Wiki for the movie world, that's not going to be likely.

Quote: "The Resources Development Administration, or RDA is the largest single military organization in human space. Its power is such that it outmatches most Earth governments in wealth, political influence, and military capability. The RDA has monopoly rights to all products shipped, derived, or developed from Pandora and any other off-Earth location. These rights were granted to the RDA in perpetuity by the Interplanetary Commerce Administration (ICA), with the stipulation that they abide by a treaty that prohibits weapons of mass destruction and limits military power in space."

Windows equivalent - Ctrl-Tab (vs Alt-Tab for programs or windows). :)

Why? Are you going to DRM all the documents mentioning DRM?

Hopefully they will know that it existed (and that it was a really bad idea). Something about those that forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them...

By my prediction, that is how long it is going to take for OLPC to take credit for this.

All they did was set up a NAT that (obviously) disallowed all incoming connections, this was enough to cause lots and lots of problems with all sorts of apps.

/Mikael

Oracle actually wants it, and it's worth 10-100x what Monty could personally afford.

Meh, these dopey boxes don't do UPnP or DLNA, therefore they are worthless.

My xtreamer may be a buggy pain in the butt, but at least it will stream off my ps3mediaserver, and it costs far less than a PS3 or XBox.

http://www.xtreamer.net/

Others include

• Firebird
• Ingres

And there are many more, relational and non-relational, out there.